What would need to happen for the szlachta to be rendered powerless or have their power reduced?

As I understand, one of the major weaknesses of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was that it was a hybrid between a oligarchy and a constitutional monarchy. The szlachta, who sat on the Sejm, effectively called the shots in the Commonwealth, with the king being a elected figurehead, and they were notoriously corrupt, using their power of liberum veto to effectively prevent laws from being passed.

(Please correct me if this assumption is wrong in any way)

So, what would need to happen for the szlachta to be rendered powerless or have hteir power reduced? I know two of the steps include abolishing the liberum veto and having the king be a proper, hereditary monarch, but how can these, among other steps, be accomplished?
 

krieger

Banned
As I understand, one of the major weaknesses of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was that it was a hybrid between a oligarchy and a constitutional monarchy. The szlachta, who sat on the Sejm, effectively called the shots in the Commonwealth, with the king being a elected figurehead, and they were notoriously corrupt, using their power of liberum veto to effectively prevent laws from being passed.

(Please correct me if this assumption is wrong in any way)

So, what would need to happen for the szlachta to be rendered powerless or have hteir power reduced? I know two of the steps include abolishing the liberum veto and having the king be a proper, hereditary monarch, but how can these, among other steps, be accomplished?

Let Jagiełło have children with Hedwig of Anjou. It would make Jagiellons hereditary (not elective) rulers and Jagiełło wouldn't need to give that much privileges. Also it would give the prospects of Jagiellon fastened growth with Jagiellon having a better claim to Hungary than Sigismund of Luxembourg himself, and the Jagiełło's and Jadwiga's child would be a decent husband for Elizabeth of Luxembourg. Also Jagiełło wouldn't need revoke his treaties with Polish and to save Lithuanian independence. We could tighten ties between Poland and Lithuania earlier (in fact Lithuania was considered a part of Polish crown and Jagiełło while having a son with Hedwig has no need to change this). Also Teutonic Order with Poland, Hungary and Lithuania being against them would be in weaker position and could lose Pomerelia/whole Prussia. Jagiellons could even reach Imperial crown or Naples (but this is doubtful, even if they conquer it they would quickly lose it). Instead of weak PLC of our reality, the large-Jagiellon led empire would be formed. With royal power being absolute/close to absolute @Jan Olbracht
 
Earlier POD means greater chance to change things, but with 16th century POD (more competent/lucky Alexander Jagiellon, surviving Jagiellon dynasty) different path is possible. Last Jagiellons ruled through Senate (which was smaller and easier to control, also King could nominate senators, unlike Envoys, who were choosen by nobles). King and senators marginalised House of Envoys. Would this process continue Poland would resemble Habsburg Hungary.
 

krieger

Banned
Earlier POD means greater chance to change things, but with 16th century POD (more competent/lucky Alexander Jagiellon, surviving Jagiellon dynasty) different path is possible. Last Jagiellons ruled through Senate (which was smaller and easier to control, also King could nominate senators, unlike Envoys, who were choosen by nobles). King and senators marginalised House of Envoys. Would this process continue Poland would resemble Habsburg Hungary.

Ideological factor is also important, but underrated. By the time of 16th century the works praising "noble democracy"/"republicanism" were already there for example Łukasz Górnicki (and he is an interesting example, because he wasn't even born as a nobleman, he was a nobilited merchant) wrote his statement "you don't have such freedom anywhere, but in Poland". That's why earlier POD is needed because with throne being hereditary there is more chance for works concentrated on praising "pure monarchy" (opposed to monarchia mixta) as a form of government. And works influenced noble minds, contributing to create ideology of sarmatism.
 
Ideological factor is also important, but underrated. By the time of 16th century the works praising "noble democracy"/"republicanism" were already there for example Łukasz Górnicki (and he is an interesting example, because he wasn't even born as a nobleman, he was a nobilited merchant) wrote his statement "you don't have such freedom anywhere, but in Poland". That's why earlier POD is needed because with throne being hereditary there is more chance for works concentrated on praising "pure monarchy" (opposed to monarchia mixta) as a form of government. And works influenced noble minds, contributing to create ideology of sarmatism.
Still, with early 16th century POD you could butterfly away nihil novi and incorporation of Mazovia (which increased % of nobles in Poland).
 
As I understand, one of the major weaknesses of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was that it was a hybrid between a oligarchy and a constitutional monarchy. The szlachta, who sat on the Sejm, effectively called the shots in the Commonwealth, with the king being a elected figurehead, and they were notoriously corrupt, using their power of liberum veto to effectively prevent laws from being passed.

(Please correct me if this assumption is wrong in any way)

So, what would need to happen for the szlachta to be rendered powerless or have hteir power reduced? I know two of the steps include abolishing the liberum veto and having the king be a proper, hereditary monarch, but how can these, among other steps, be accomplished?


A popular idea that just by few different marriages all the problems would be solved is, IMO, more than a little bit optimistic. Look at how the things had been developing elsewhere in Europe. For a monarch to become something more than a celebrated clown, he needed a power base. In other words, there should be a situation in which nobility depends on the royal power. Specifics could vary.

In France this was a long process of increasing the royal domain and getting rid of the old feudal families (especially those who had their titles ‘by God’s grace’) with a lot of “cleansing” happening during the reign of Louis XI, Wars of Religion, reign of Louis XIII. What’s important is that by the end of the100YW kings of France got a solid taxation base allowing them to raise considerable military force independent from the feudal levies. As a result, after Mazarin dealt with Fronde, Louis XIV had his own army that was strong enough to deal with any internal problems and enough of financial power to make service to him pretty much the only option for a nobility (unless they wanted to remain totally irrelevant), even if they were formally independent from royal power in their landownership. It seems that in most cases an aristocrat could not maintain a required life style based just on an income from his lands: he needed a royal help in the forms of the land grants, paid court positions, income generating properties, etc.

In the Russian state most of the land belonged to the Great Princes/Tsars/early Emperors and a noble was getting the land and serfs only upon the condition of a service and only for as long as a ruler is pleased with his service. Only in mid-XVIII the land possession became permanent but the government still had huge resources for awarding the nobility (short of the profitable marriages, these grants were practically the only way for increase one’s wealth).

In the PLC it was the worst case scenario: from the getgo the land was in the hands of nobility unconditionally and there was never a need or desire to grant a king some financial base that would make him truly independent: the royal estates from which he should finance a staying army were inadequate for the task. So you have to invent a scenario under which either French or Russian model is implemented. Giving the royal clowns extra crowns or even making their rule hereditary would not do the job.
 

krieger

Banned
Still, with early 16th century POD you could butterfly away nihil novi and incorporation of Mazovia (which increased % of nobles in Poland).
True, but the the best scenario for this would be surviving Casimir Jr/longer living John Albert.
 

krieger

Banned
...and Mazovian Piasts drinking less.
Mazovian nobility was royalist at PLC standars and they were more willing to support King even in XVIIth century (Szczęsny Kryski, envoy from Mazovia wrote that the pure monarchy is the best form of government in his diary)
 
Mazovian nobility was royalist at PLC standars and they were more willing to support King even in XVIIth century (Szczęsny Kryski, envoy from Mazovia wrote that the pure monarchy is the best form of government in his diary)
Prolopably they get used to hereditary monarchy under Mazovian Piasts. Still, before incorporation of Mazovia there was 3-6% of nobles in other parts of Poland, when in Mazovia it was 20%. After incorporation there was 10% of nobles nationwide.
 

krieger

Banned
Prolopably they get used to hereditary monarchy under Mazovian Piasts. Still, before incorporation of Mazovia there was 3-6% of nobles in other parts of Poland, when in Mazovia it was 20%. After incorporation there was 10% of nobles nationwide.

But their influence was not always negative. For example envoys from Nur land and Różan land (the most backward lands in Mazovia) never used liberum veto. So I think that they weren't main factor deciding the future of the country.
 
For my own timeline Poland Lithuania gets inherited by the Hohenzollerns (occupying Bohemia briefly during the collapse of the Luxembourg dynasty and the Hussite Wars, though they have to give this up on the union with Brandenburg they keep Silesia), giving the subsequent kings a chance at consolidation, as they have an independent power base plus an Electoral Vote with which to buy favors off whoever the Emperor is, and to an extent can play the German, Lithuanian and Polish nobility off each other. Of course like the Habsburg monarchy the process is far removed from an absolute monarchy, the Poles, like the Hungarians and Czechs in the Dual Monarchy, are quite active in defending their "rights," but dynastic continuity would, in theory, allow the consolidation of some power, even if it is something that will remain a chronic problem down to the *First World War.

So yeah what @alexmilman said, you need to create an internal power base for the crown. Dynastic continuity is a big part of this since it gives the king a reason to view the office as something worth investing in and passing on to his heirs, rather than just a fancy prestige title worth next to nothing (see also the HRE).
 
Top